History UsefulNotes / Psychology

Psychology largely branched off from philosophy, which is where most vague ruminations get their start; as far back as Creator/{{Plato}} and Creator/{{Aristotle}}, people were making suppositions on human behavior. Major boosts to physiology during the 1800's made people start to believe (not incorrectly) that fundamental aspects of consciousness -- sensation, motor control, personality, memory, etc. -- could be detected as physical phenomena in the brain. The first "true" psychologist was UsefulNotes/WilhelmWundt, who opened a laboratory for the purpose in Leipzig in 1879.

to:

If Psychology largely branched off from philosophy, which is where most vague ruminations get their start; limited to the understanding of the human mind, then a good part of its origins can be traced to philosophy. Philosophy's original questions, as far back as Creator/{{Plato}} and Creator/{{Aristotle}}, dealt with arguments about what people were making suppositions on do, why they do it, and if their behaviour is conditioned by society, by some other force (divine) or so on. However, philosophy differs from psychology in that it is concerned with the human behavior. Major boosts to physiology during mind in so far as it is capable of reasoning, and it is geared towards creating and perfecting ideas for rational ends. Philosophers may write about dreams or use dreams as examples but they always held that their dreams have rational functions or draw rational material from their dreams, whereas for a psychologist, the 1800's made human mind is the human mind, dreams are dreams and the ability of people to rationalize their dreams is a symptom of their psychological process but has nothing to do with the content and function of the dream itself.

Modern psychology like all the social sciences, really traced its roots to the nineteenth century. Interests in the human mind and the "unconscious" had both academic and popular interests. At the start to believe (not incorrectly) of the century there was the fad of Mesmerism and "animal magnetism", and towards the middle part of the century there was growing understanding that fundamental aspects of consciousness -- sensation, motor control, personality, memory, etc. -- could be detected as physical phenomena in the brain. The first "true" psychologist was UsefulNotes/WilhelmWundt, who opened a laboratory for the purpose in Leipzig in 1879.

* Finally, a fellow we've all heard of -- UsefulNotes/SigmundFreud -- came up with an approach called '''Psychoanalysis''', which in some ways combined the two: While introspection and self-observation were a major part of the process, the client looked for actual dysfunctional behaviors they were displaying, and then asked the psychoanalyst for help in puzzling out the motivations behind those behaviors. While a fair amount of Freud's theories -- particularly his obsession with sex -- are [[DeadHorseTrope largely discredited today]], the things he got ''right'', particularly the idea of the the subconscious mind and all tropes rooted therein, are just as sacrosanct.

Functionalism evolved further into '''Behaviorism''' as time went on. The first step in this direction was another name you're likely to know -- UsefulNotes/IvanPavlov -- who demonstrated the link between experience and learning. Pavlov's classic "Classical Conditioning" experiment was to ring a bell every time he fed his dog, who had been outfitted with an implant that collected some of its saliva. After a while of this, Pavlov demonstrated that, when he rang the bell, the dog would start to drool; it had been "conditioned" to associate the bell with food. Another researcher, UsefulNotes/BFSkinner, expanded this to "operant conditioning" which is basically how consequences, such as rewards and benefits, determine the frequency of behavior. He rigged up a contraption where lab rats would receive food every time they hit a lever in their cages; the rats continued to do this even after the food stopped. He was also able to train rats ''not'' to do things -- even natural, logical things -- by immediately administering punishments every time they did. In doing so, Skinner gave us the most radical definition of Behaviorism: All things we do and value are trained into us by stimulus-response conditioning, the hard way, and thus do not require consciousness. We are all easily manipulated robots.

to:

* Finally, a fellow we've all heard of -- UsefulNotes/SigmundFreud -- came up with an approach called '''Psychoanalysis''', which in some ways combined the two: While introspection and self-observation were a major part of the process, the client looked for actual dysfunctional behaviors they were displaying, and then asked the psychoanalyst for help in puzzling out the motivations behind those behaviors. While It was Freud who most coherently argued that a fair amount of Freud's theories -- particularly his obsession with sex -- are [[DeadHorseTrope largely discredited today]], the things he got ''right'', particularly the idea great part of the the subconscious human mind was unconscious and all tropes rooted therein, repressed. Given that he lived and worked in late 19th Century Vienna in the decaying Habsburg era, which was coeval with the Victorian-Edwardian age, a great deal of his investigations into unconscious mechanics and repression focused on sex, which means that his works are just a perennial source for controversy especially in the Anglophone. Freud began his career as sacrosanct.

a neurologist and a number of his earlier papers in neurology became important in the development of that field, but limited by the technology of his time, he departed from hard science to a more empirical and intuitive model, that became known in PopCulturalOsmosis as "the talking cure".* Functionalism evolved further into '''Behaviorism''' as time went on. The first step in this direction was another name you're likely to know -- UsefulNotes/IvanPavlov -- who demonstrated the link between experience and learning. Pavlov's classic "Classical Conditioning" experiment was to ring a bell every time he fed his dog, who had been outfitted with an implant that collected some of its saliva. After a while of this, Pavlov demonstrated that, when he rang the bell, the dog would start to drool; it had been "conditioned" to associate the bell with food. Another researcher, UsefulNotes/BFSkinner, expanded this to "operant conditioning" which is basically how consequences, such as rewards and benefits, determine the frequency of behavior. He rigged up a contraption where lab rats would receive food every time they hit a lever in their cages; the rats continued to do this even after the food stopped. He was also able to train rats ''not'' to do things -- even natural, logical things -- by immediately administering punishments every time they did. In doing so, Skinner gave us the most radical definition of Behaviorism: All things we do and value are trained into us by stimulus-response conditioning, the hard way, and thus do not require consciousness. We are all easily manipulated robots.

The experiment dictates that past a certain point (in the original case, 375 volts), the confederate will stop yelling, stop banging on the wall... [[NothingIsScarier stop making any responses at all]]. The participant is told to construe these silences as failed responses and continue administering the shocks, ignoring that something is quite obviously wrong with the Learner. This is why the Milgram experiments are probably too unethical to reproduce today: the participant is made to believe, or to fear, that [[MoralEventHorizon s/he has just killed a fellow human being for the sake of an experiment]]. It was staged just after Israel's trial of ex-Lieutenant-Colonel Adolf Eichmann of the ''RSHA'' ('''''R'''eichs'''S'''icherheits'''H'''aupt'''A'''mt'', lit. "Reich Main Security Office"). Eichmann had copied the "JustFollowingOrders" excuse used by defendants in the IMT and other postwar military court trials, possibly believing that its validity ([[UsefulNotes/TheHolocaust rather than Anglo-American desire to free Nazis to oppose Communism]]) had helped the vast majority of its users avoid conviction or punishment, and some observers such as the philosopher Hannah Arendt viewed it as their duty (as journalists) to relay this flimsy justification verbatim without voicing their serious doubts about its validity. Eichmann was quite obviously a highly intelligent and creatively fanatical racist (something [[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/28/adolf-eichmann-final-message-architects-holocaust-evil often missed by those who merely skim the case]]), rather than a genuine case of JustFollowingOrders, but Milgram wanted to find out just how far people truly would go if ordered by people like Eichmann. This is why the control panel has the series of buttons: to set a quantity, in voltage, on the perils of blind obedience.

to:

The experiment dictates that past a certain point (in the original case, 375 volts), the confederate will stop yelling, stop banging on the wall... [[NothingIsScarier stop making any responses at all]]. The participant is told to construe these silences as failed responses and continue administering the shocks, ignoring that something is quite obviously wrong with the Learner. This is why the Milgram experiments are probably too unethical to reproduce today: the participant is made to believe, or to fear, that [[MoralEventHorizon s/he has just killed a fellow human being for the sake of an experiment]]. It was staged just after Israel's trial of ex-Lieutenant-Colonel Adolf Eichmann of the ''RSHA'' ('''''R'''eichs'''S'''icherheits'''H'''aupt'''A'''mt'', lit. "Reich Main Security Office"). Eichmann had copied the "JustFollowingOrders" excuse used by defendants in the IMT and other postwar military court trials, possibly believing that its validity ([[UsefulNotes/TheHolocaust rather than Anglo-American desire to free Nazis to oppose Communism]]) had helped the vast majority of its users avoid conviction or punishment, and some observers such as the philosopher Hannah Arendt viewed it as their duty (as journalists) to relay this flimsy justification verbatim without voicing their serious doubts about its validity.punishment. Eichmann was quite obviously a highly intelligent and creatively fanatical racist (something [[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/28/adolf-eichmann-final-message-architects-holocaust-evil often missed by those who merely skim the case]]), rather than a genuine case of JustFollowingOrders, but Milgram wanted to find out just how far people truly would go if ordered by people like Eichmann. This is why the control panel has the series of buttons: to set a quantity, in voltage, on the perils of blind obedience.

Most modern societies stilly play the "TherapyIsForTheWeak" trope totally straight - Japan has more sex therapists than regular ones. In most of these it's "CommonKnowledge" (HA) that if you seek out psychotherapy, something "must be" deeply wrong with you. AsYouKnow, this is an incredibly counterproductive misconception. Psychology is "the study of human behavior," and like most humans you are behaving most of the time - so what harm could result from examining your own behaviors and trying to improve it? ...besides the fact that most of us are probably in denial about some of our behaviors and motivations. A clear majority of us ''believe'' that we are self-aware, but actually self-aware people are very much in the minority [[AndThatsTerrible since actually examining our flaws makes us feel bad]]. The desire to avoid admitting our flaws is pretty deeply ingrained since that keeps us feeling good about ourselves, and it feeds into the stigma against therapy. In US society in particular the general refusal to engage in self-reflection is pretty ironic, since they've been at the bleeding edge of psychology since about TheFifties.

In any case: let's get this out of the way. If you are going to or have been recommended to go to therapy, ''there is nothing wrong with you''. You would simply like some advice on how to be happier with your life. (And who the hell doesn't want that?)

to:

Most modern societies stilly still play the "TherapyIsForTheWeak" trope totally straight - -- Japan has more sex therapists than regular ones. In most of these it's "CommonKnowledge" (HA) that if you seek out psychotherapy, something "must be" deeply wrong with you. AsYouKnow, this is an incredibly counterproductive misconception. Psychology is "the study of human behavior," and like most humans you are behaving most of the time - so what harm could result from examining your own behaviors and trying to improve it? ...besides the fact that most of us are probably in denial about some of our behaviors and motivations. A clear majority of us ''believe'' that we are self-aware, but actually self-aware people are very much in the minority [[AndThatsTerrible since actually examining our flaws makes us feel bad]]. The desire to avoid admitting our flaws is pretty deeply ingrained since that keeps us feeling good about ourselves, and it feeds into the stigma against therapy. In US society in particular America, this is especially prominent thanks to the general refusal to engage in self-reflection is pretty ironic, since they've been at the bleeding edge malign influence of psychology "ego psychology" since about TheFifties.

TheFifties. Classic Freudian psychoanalysis was famously pessimistic and critical, seeing neurosis and repression as understandable and even, in some cases, heroic responses to what Freud saw as the inevitably disappointing nature of human society. The goal for Freud was better understanding of one's own self so that the person could be more aware when choosing to do something or the other. It did not by itself involve, necessarily, being successful, being a member of respectable society and indeed avoided prescribing ''goals'' as such. Now, "Ego psychology" said that the goal was to be a functioning person in a society, and by doing so, it essentially validated the given society and its values (i.e. USA in TheFifties) as worthy striving towards and assimilating into. This made psychotherapy quite popular, and even mainstream in that time, but this changed in TheSixties and TheSeventies, where social currents from below was mirrored by changes in the academic psychological establishment (most notably its declassification of homosexuality as an illness) and this un-tethering from the values of mainstream America was reflected, not coincidentally, in a radical rollback on mental health institutes across America, chiefly under the presidency of UsefulNotes/RonaldReagan.

Since then, mental health and representations of mental health, have faced all kinds of stigma, both mocking and serious. In any case: let's get this out of the way. If you are going to or have been recommended to go to therapy, ''there is nothing wrong with you''. You would simply like some advice on how to be happier with your life. (And who the hell doesn't want that?)that?) However, you might change your opinions and feelings about some of the things you take for granted. And there are always consequences for any change made by a person.

American society plays the "TherapyIsForTheWeak" trope totally straight. It's CommonKnowledge that if you need psychotherapy, something is inherently wrong with you. The reality is the opposite. Psychology is "the study of human behavior," and like most humans you are behaving most of the time; so what harm could result from examining your own behaviors and trying to improve them? ...Besides the fact that most of us are probably in denial about some of our behaviors and motivations; self-awareness isn't always a value Americans embrace. And that probably feeds into the stigma against therapy, which is ironic because American researchers have been the bleeding edge of psychology since about TheFifties.

to:

American society plays Most modern societies stilly play the "TherapyIsForTheWeak" trope totally straight. It's CommonKnowledge straight - Japan has more sex therapists than regular ones. In most of these it's "CommonKnowledge" (HA) that if you need seek out psychotherapy, something is inherently "must be" deeply wrong with you. The reality AsYouKnow, this is the opposite. an incredibly counterproductive misconception. Psychology is "the study of human behavior," and like most humans you are behaving most of the time; time - so what harm could result from examining your own behaviors and trying to improve them? ...Besides it? ...besides the fact that most of us are probably in denial about some of our behaviors and motivations; self-awareness isn't always a value Americans embrace. And motivations. A clear majority of us ''believe'' that probably we are self-aware, but actually self-aware people are very much in the minority [[AndThatsTerrible since actually examining our flaws makes us feel bad]]. The desire to avoid admitting our flaws is pretty deeply ingrained since that keeps us feeling good about ourselves, and it feeds into the stigma against therapy, which therapy. In US society in particular the general refusal to engage in self-reflection is ironic because American researchers have pretty ironic, since they've been at the bleeding edge of psychology since about TheFifties.

The experiment dictates that past a certain point (in the original case, 375 volts), the confederate will stop yelling, stop banging on the wall... [[NothingIsScarier stop making any responses at all]]. The participant is told to construe these silences as failed responses and continue administering the shocks, ignoring that something is quite obviously wrong with the Learner. This is why the Milgram experiments are probably too unethical to reproduce today: the participant is made to believe, or to fear, that [[MoralEventHorizon s/he has just killed a fellow human being for the sake of an experiment]]. It was staged just after Israel's trial of ex-Lieutenant-Colonel Adolf Eichmann of the ''RSHA'' ('''''R'''eichs'''S'''icherheits'''H'''aupt'''A'''mt'', lit. "Reich Main Security Office"). Eichmann had copied the "JustFollowingOrders" excuse used by defendants in the IMT and other postwar military court trials, possibly believing that its validity ([[UsefulNotes/TheHolocaust rather than Anglo-American desire to free Nazis to oppose Communism]]) had helped the vast majority of its users avoid conviction or punishment, and some observers such as the philosopher Hannah Arendt viewed it as their duty (as journalists) to relay this flimsy justification verbatim without voicing their serious doubts about its validity. Milgram wanted to find out just how far people truly ''would'' go if ordered. This is why the control panel has the series of buttons: to set a quantity, in voltage, on the perils of blind obedience.

to:

The experiment dictates that past a certain point (in the original case, 375 volts), the confederate will stop yelling, stop banging on the wall... [[NothingIsScarier stop making any responses at all]]. The participant is told to construe these silences as failed responses and continue administering the shocks, ignoring that something is quite obviously wrong with the Learner. This is why the Milgram experiments are probably too unethical to reproduce today: the participant is made to believe, or to fear, that [[MoralEventHorizon s/he has just killed a fellow human being for the sake of an experiment]]. It was staged just after Israel's trial of ex-Lieutenant-Colonel Adolf Eichmann of the ''RSHA'' ('''''R'''eichs'''S'''icherheits'''H'''aupt'''A'''mt'', lit. "Reich Main Security Office"). Eichmann had copied the "JustFollowingOrders" excuse used by defendants in the IMT and other postwar military court trials, possibly believing that its validity ([[UsefulNotes/TheHolocaust rather than Anglo-American desire to free Nazis to oppose Communism]]) had helped the vast majority of its users avoid conviction or punishment, and some observers such as the philosopher Hannah Arendt viewed it as their duty (as journalists) to relay this flimsy justification verbatim without voicing their serious doubts about its validity. Eichmann was quite obviously a highly intelligent and creatively fanatical racist (something [[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/28/adolf-eichmann-final-message-architects-holocaust-evil often missed by those who merely skim the case]]), rather than a genuine case of JustFollowingOrders, but Milgram wanted to find out just how far people truly ''would'' would go if ordered.ordered by people like Eichmann. This is why the control panel has the series of buttons: to set a quantity, in voltage, on the perils of blind obedience.

The experiment dictates that past a certain point (in the original case, 375 volts), the confederate will stop yelling, stop banging on the wall... [[NothingIsScarier stop making any responses at all]]. The participant is told to construe these silences as failed responses and continue administering the shocks, ignoring that something is quite obviously wrong with the Learner. This is why the Milgram experiments are probably too unethical to reproduce today: the participant is made to believe, or to fear, that [[MoralEventHorizon s/he has just killed a fellow human being for the sake of an experiment]]. It was staged just after Israel's trial of ex-Lieutenant-Colonel Adolf Eichmann of the ''RSHA'' (''{{ReichsSicherheitsHauptAmt}}'', lit. "Reich Main Security Office"). Eichmann had copied the "JustFollowingOrders" excuse used by defendants in the IMT and other postwar military court trials, possibly believing that its validity (rather than Anglo-American desire to free Nazis so they would oppose Communism) had helped the vast majority of its users avoid conviction or punishment, and some observers such as the philosopher Hannah Arendt viewed it as their duty (as journalists) to relay this flimsy justification verbatim without voicing their serious doubts about its validity. Milgram wanted to find out just how far people truly ''would'' go if ordered. This is why the control panel has the series of buttons: to set a quantity, in voltage, on the perils of blind obedience.

to:

The experiment dictates that past a certain point (in the original case, 375 volts), the confederate will stop yelling, stop banging on the wall... [[NothingIsScarier stop making any responses at all]]. The participant is told to construe these silences as failed responses and continue administering the shocks, ignoring that something is quite obviously wrong with the Learner. This is why the Milgram experiments are probably too unethical to reproduce today: the participant is made to believe, or to fear, that [[MoralEventHorizon s/he has just killed a fellow human being for the sake of an experiment]]. It was staged just after Israel's trial of ex-Lieutenant-Colonel Adolf Eichmann of the ''RSHA'' (''{{ReichsSicherheitsHauptAmt}}'', ('''''R'''eichs'''S'''icherheits'''H'''aupt'''A'''mt'', lit. "Reich Main Security Office"). Eichmann had copied the "JustFollowingOrders" excuse used by defendants in the IMT and other postwar military court trials, possibly believing that its validity (rather ([[UsefulNotes/TheHolocaust rather than Anglo-American desire to free Nazis so they would to oppose Communism) Communism]]) had helped the vast majority of its users avoid conviction or punishment, and some observers such as the philosopher Hannah Arendt viewed it as their duty (as journalists) to relay this flimsy justification verbatim without voicing their serious doubts about its validity. Milgram wanted to find out just how far people truly ''would'' go if ordered. This is why the control panel has the series of buttons: to set a quantity, in voltage, on the perils of blind obedience.

The experiment dictates that past a certain point (in the original case, 375 volts), the confederate will stop yelling, stop banging on the wall... [[NothingIsScarier stop making any responses at all]]. The participant is told to construe these silences as failed responses and continue administering the shocks, ignoring that something is quite obviously wrong with the Learner. This is why the Milgram experiments are probably too unethical to reproduce today: the participant is made to believe, or to fear, that [[MoralEventHorizon s/he has just killed a fellow human being for the sake of an experiment]]. It was staged just after Israel's trial of ex-Lieutenant-Colonel Adolf Eichmann of the ''RSHA'' (''ReichsSicherheitsHauptAmt'', lit. "Reich Main Security Office"). Eichmann had copied the "JustFollowingOrders" excuse used by defendants in the IMT and other postwar military court trials, possibly believing that its validity (rather than Anglo-American desire to free Nazis so they would oppose Communism) had helped the vast majority of its users avoid conviction or punishment, and some observers such as the philosopher Hannah Arendt viewed it as their duty (as journalists) to relay this flimsy justification verbatim without voicing their serious doubts about its validity. Milgram wanted to find out just how far people truly ''would'' go if ordered. This is why the control panel has the series of buttons: to set a quantity, in voltage, on the perils of blind obedience.

to:

The experiment dictates that past a certain point (in the original case, 375 volts), the confederate will stop yelling, stop banging on the wall... [[NothingIsScarier stop making any responses at all]]. The participant is told to construe these silences as failed responses and continue administering the shocks, ignoring that something is quite obviously wrong with the Learner. This is why the Milgram experiments are probably too unethical to reproduce today: the participant is made to believe, or to fear, that [[MoralEventHorizon s/he has just killed a fellow human being for the sake of an experiment]]. It was staged just after Israel's trial of ex-Lieutenant-Colonel Adolf Eichmann of the ''RSHA'' (''ReichsSicherheitsHauptAmt'', (''{{ReichsSicherheitsHauptAmt}}'', lit. "Reich Main Security Office"). Eichmann had copied the "JustFollowingOrders" excuse used by defendants in the IMT and other postwar military court trials, possibly believing that its validity (rather than Anglo-American desire to free Nazis so they would oppose Communism) had helped the vast majority of its users avoid conviction or punishment, and some observers such as the philosopher Hannah Arendt viewed it as their duty (as journalists) to relay this flimsy justification verbatim without voicing their serious doubts about its validity. Milgram wanted to find out just how far people truly ''would'' go if ordered. This is why the control panel has the series of buttons: to set a quantity, in voltage, on the perils of blind obedience.

The experiment dictates that past a certain point (in the original case, 375 volts), the confederate will stop yelling, stop banging on the wall... [[NothingIsScarier stop making any responses at all]]. The participant is told to construe these silences as failed responses and continue administering the shocks, ignoring that something is quite obviously wrong with the Learner. This is why the Milgram experiments are probably too unethical to reproduce today: the participant is made to believe, or to fear, that [[MoralEventHorizon s/he has just killed a fellow human being for the sake of an experiment]]. It was staged just after the trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann, who used the "JustFollowingOrders" excuse, implicitly allowing almost every German citizen alive to use it as well. Milgram wanted to find out just how far people ''would'' go if given that excuse. This is why the control panel has the series of buttons: you can now set a quantity, in voltage, on the perils of blind obedience.

to:

The experiment dictates that past a certain point (in the original case, 375 volts), the confederate will stop yelling, stop banging on the wall... [[NothingIsScarier stop making any responses at all]]. The participant is told to construe these silences as failed responses and continue administering the shocks, ignoring that something is quite obviously wrong with the Learner. This is why the Milgram experiments are probably too unethical to reproduce today: the participant is made to believe, or to fear, that [[MoralEventHorizon s/he has just killed a fellow human being for the sake of an experiment]]. It was staged just after the Israel's trial of Nazi war criminal ex-Lieutenant-Colonel Adolf Eichmann, who used Eichmann of the ''RSHA'' (''ReichsSicherheitsHauptAmt'', lit. "Reich Main Security Office"). Eichmann had copied the "JustFollowingOrders" excuse, implicitly allowing almost every German citizen alive excuse used by defendants in the IMT and other postwar military court trials, possibly believing that its validity (rather than Anglo-American desire to use free Nazis so they would oppose Communism) had helped the vast majority of its users avoid conviction or punishment, and some observers such as the philosopher Hannah Arendt viewed it as well. their duty (as journalists) to relay this flimsy justification verbatim without voicing their serious doubts about its validity. Milgram wanted to find out just how far people truly ''would'' go if given that excuse. ordered. This is why the control panel has the series of buttons: you can now to set a quantity, in voltage, on the perils of blind obedience.

There's two basic branches of psychology: "Basic" and "Applied." The former is more about making discoveries and figuring out fundamental things about human braining; the latter is about using them in other areas. Examples of these "other areas" on TheOtherWiki include education, medicine and health care, product design and law; but psychology is "the study of human behavior" and those are all places where humans behave, you could make the argument that those fields are all just either extensions of psychology or hybrids of it with other disciplines. That's kind of the problem with psychology: Aside from the hard sciences, there's very little it doesn't have its fingers in.

to:

There's two basic branches of psychology: "Basic" and "Applied." The former is more about making discoveries and figuring out fundamental things about human braining; the latter is about using them in other areas. Examples of these "other areas" on TheOtherWiki Wiki/TheOtherWiki include education, medicine and health care, product design and law; but psychology is "the study of human behavior" and those are all places where humans behave, you could make the argument that those fields are all just either extensions of psychology or hybrids of it with other disciplines. That's kind of the problem with psychology: Aside from the hard sciences, there's very little it doesn't have its fingers in.

* '''Developmental Psychology''', is the study of "systematic psychological changes, emotional changes, and perception changes that occur in human beings over the course of their life span." (We keep quoting TheOtherWiki because they keep putting things well.) Another good name for it might be "The Psychology of Aging." Once called "Child Psychology," the field has expanded to cover all age ranges; indeed there's specialties in Elderly Psychology now (which could prove really useful to those of us who intend to have jobs during the Baby Boom Retirement Wave.) The general focus of developmental psychology is on acquisition and/or evolution of skills, moral & conceptual understanding, and self-concept.

to:

* '''Developmental Psychology''', is the study of "systematic psychological changes, emotional changes, and perception changes that occur in human beings over the course of their life span." (We keep quoting TheOtherWiki Wiki/TheOtherWiki because they keep putting things well.) Another good name for it might be "The Psychology of Aging." Once called "Child Psychology," the field has expanded to cover all age ranges; indeed there's specialties in Elderly Psychology now (which could prove really useful to those of us who intend to have jobs during the Baby Boom Retirement Wave.) The general focus of developmental psychology is on acquisition and/or evolution of skills, moral & conceptual understanding, and self-concept.

* KnowNothingKnowItAll / HeroicSelfDeprecation: These are both the result of the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect Dunning-Kruger effect]], which states that it's possible to be [[TooDumbToLive so flamingly incompetent]] that you can't even recognize your own incompetence. Conversely, people with actual skill often underestimate themselves, assuming that ''everyone'' can detect the FatalFlaw or AchillesHeel in their competence. See also the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overconfidence_effect Overconfidence effect]], in which one believes one is always right.

to:

* KnowNothingKnowItAll / HeroicSelfDeprecation: These are both the result of the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect Dunning-Kruger effect]], which states that it's possible to be [[TooDumbToLive so flamingly incompetent]] that you can't even recognize your own incompetence.you're IgnorantOfYourOwnIgnorance. Conversely, people with actual skill often underestimate themselves, assuming that ''everyone'' can detect the FatalFlaw or AchillesHeel in their competence. See also the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overconfidence_effect Overconfidence effect]], in which one believes one is always right.

Community

Tropes HQ

TVTropes is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org. Privacy Policy